Truth Magazine

By Fred Melton

It may not be a real big surprise to some brethren that Abilene “Christian” University has been teaching the theory of evolution in their science classes for years now but it certainly was a revelation to Dr. Bert Thompson, Professor of Bible and Science at Alabama Christian School of Religion – an alumnus of Abilene. Thompson, who heads up the Apologetics Press in Montgomery, Alabama and lectures on creation and evolution, was first alerted by an ACU student named Mark Scott. Scott sent Thompson a huge packet of class materials including the evolutionary notes of Dr. Archie Manis, Associate Professor of Biology at ACU and an elder of the Baker Heights Church of Christ in Abilene.

Among the items sent by Scott was class handout material by Manis entitled “Research in Genesis” which contained a marginal note in Manis’ own handwriting: “Creation, Hymn, Myth -I — 1:1-2:3 Hymn, Myth -2 — 2:4-24.” Other “evidences” of the evolutionary teachings were the required reading of Science & Creationism by Ashley Montagu, the famous evolutionist/humanist of Princeton; Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism by Kitcher and essays from Natural History by the infamous J. Gould, an evolutionist and committed Marxist. This was all done, according to Thompson’s investigations, “without any refutation whatsoever, ” and had evidently been going on for over fifteen years.

Thompson admits that he did not believe (indeed, did not want to believe) the charges at first, but was determined to follow “proper channels” in order to find out the truth about the matter. Thompson first wrote personal letters to Archie Manis and Kenneth Williams, another professor at Abilene, asking them to explain themselves concerning the teachings of evolution at the University. While waiting for some response from these two professors, a letter arrived from Perry C. Reeves, Dean of the College of Natural and Applied Sciences at ACU. Reeves praised Williams and Manis as “dedicated men” with the intent to “expose our students to the way in which evolutionists think and to ex pose them to evolutionists’ claims so that these students will be better equipped to face attacks on their faith when they leave ACU.”

As the controversy began to heat up, Thompson observes that a “cover up of significant proportions was beginning to take shape” from the two professors all the way to the President and the Board of Trustees, who had ordered them to completely ignore Thompson’s letters.

Meanwhile, Mark Scott, who had first alerted Thompson to this “rotten” business discovered that his biology grade had been lowered from an “A” or a “B” to a “C” and a Botany lab grade to a “D” which kept him from making the Dean’s list. When Mark confronted Manis about why his grades had been lowered, Manis replied (as told by Mark Scott), “The real reason I got a ‘C’ was because it was the only way he could get rid of his anger and keep him from taking me (Mark Scott), you (Bert Thompson), and your ‘outfit’ to court and suing us” (Mark’s grades were later raised back to a “B”).

As other students and parents began to be drawn into the fight, one Rowena Lobley wrote to Thompson that her daughter Brenda, a second year medical student out of San Antonio, had graduated magna cum laude from ACU and was “very confused about evolution.” When Brenda was asked if her instructors (Drs. Manis and Williams) ever refuted evolution, she replied, “quite the contrary, it was presented as fact” and she felt that ACU thinks that if it doesn’t teach evolution it will lose credibility which the “scientific community.”

Back in the sacred halls of Abilene, “Dr.” Manis waltzes into the room on the first day of the freshman biology class and proclaims, “There are some people ‘outside’ the university community who are trying to tell me what I can and cannot teach. But they won’t succeed. I’m an elder in the church, and I believe in evolution, I’m going to teach it to you, and you are going to believe it as well.” One of the students in the class, upset by Manis’ remarks, reported the situation to Robert Hunter, Vice President of the University as well as several others in the administration. Nothing was done.

After exhausting what he calls “chains of command” without any satisfactory results, Bert Thompson asks for and receives a face-to-face meeting with ACU officials which lasted about two and one-half hours. Thompson was accompanied to the meeting by James Williford, an elder of the 5th and Grape Street Church of Christ in Abilene as an “independent” witness. Neither Manis nor Williams was present at the meeting and when asked the reason for their absence, Dub Orr, representing the ACU Board of Trustees replied that Archie Manis was “red-headed and hottempered and might do something violent.” According to a signed statement by James Williford, the administrators present were confronted with a briefcase full of documentation that in fact Manis and Williams were teaching “either theistic or organic evolution as factual, true and to be accepted.”

Thompson promptly produced copies of “Evolution Notes” authored by Archie Manis some of which were as follows:

Evolution’s history and methodology will continue to feed debates for generations, but the fact of evolution is beyond dispute. The concept is rational, scientific, and supported by an overwhelming mass of evidence from past and present.

Evolution is a fact, not a theory. It once was a theory, but today, as a consequence of observations and testing it is probably the best authenticated actuality known to science. There are theories concerning the mechanisms of evolution, but no competent student doubts the reality of evolution.

. . . whatever the historical antecedent of Genesis, it represents but one of the innumerable creation myths which different people at different times have invented in order to account for the manner in which Earth and everything upon it came into being.

The god who is reputed to have created fleas to keep dogs from moping over their situation must also have created fundamentalists to keep rationalists from getting flabby. Let us be duly thankful for our blessings.

Such blasphemous materials were presented to students in the ACU biology classes “without any refutation whatsoever. ” When Dr. Fair, Dean of the College of Bible was shown the biology notes, he stated that in his opinion they were “rotten.”

Thompson then asked the administrators to request Manis and Williams to sign seven statements of belief in the Genesis account of creation and disbelief in evolution or fire the two professors. The officials “vehemently opposed” such a document because it would “insult the faculty members.” Thompson replied, “How could it be an insult to ask a Christian professor to sign a document in which he stated that he did not believe Genesis 1-11 to be a myth, that he did believe Genesis 1-11 to be literal and historical, that he did not believe in or advocate organic evolution or theistic evolution, and in which he stated that he did, and would refute such false concepts concerning evolution?”

The two professors finally sent Thompson letters to the effect that they believe in the Bible, Christianity, the biblical account of creation, and do not advocate organic evolution. Thompson replied, “That doesn’t tell me a thing. What I want to know is are you a theistic evolutionist? Any denominationalist could say the same thing.”

The bottom line seems to be that these men are theistic evolutionists and can, therefore, “state forthrightly” that they believe God created the earth and everything on it but did it by means of evolution. Manis was asked: “Do you believe that God created the heavens, earth, and everything in them in six literal days of approximately twenty-four hours each?” Manis replied, “I think he could have, if he had wanted to, but I don’t think that’s the way he did it. . . . ” He stated he does teach evolution and does not refute it. Furthermore, the University defended these professors, possibly fearing legal repercussions or loss of credibility with the “scientific community” if they dared to dismiss them.

If the once venerable Abilene “Christian” College (now a university) finds itself in this kind of turmoil as it advances toward “educational respectability,” what will the future hold for other such schools. As for Abilence – “you’ve gone a long way, baby.”

(For documentation of this material, see Is Genesis Myth? The Shocking Story of the Teaching of Evolution at A CU by Bert Thompson. This is available free from Apologetics Press, Inc., 230 Landmark Dr., Montgomery, AL 36117-2752.)

Guardian of Truth XXX: 5, pp. 129, 151
March 6, 1986

By David McClister

In the previous article by this same title it was shown that Jesus never did anything that was even morally questionable in the eyes of rational people. And if that is the example which Jesus has left for us, we must live that way also. We also said that we wish to consider three types of behavior in the light of Christ’s example. The first type was morally questionable behavior. Let us now consider the second type of behavior, again in the form of a question.

Would Jesus Ever Act So As To Lead Another Person To Sin, Whether In Word, Thought, Or Deed?

We know that Jesus kept His personal behavior above reproach at all times, but His concern for morality did not end with Himself. Jesus was always mindful of His influence upon others, and He never willfully did anything which caused others to stumble (sin). Here again the subject of morally neutral activities is important. There are many things which are permitted to the Christian which are neither right nor wrong in themselves. But if engaging in these things will influence a weaker person to practice them in excess and thus sin, or if our practice of them will lead another to do them and violate his conscience concerning them, then the Christian ought to have no part in them. We must be conscious of the influence and example we are setting before others, that we not allow it to cause another to sin.

A very good example of this attitude in action in the life of Christ is found in Matthew 17:24-27. It was asked whether Jesus would pay the temple tax which was collected from all Jews. Jesus, as the Son of God, was rightfully exempt from this temple support tax, and thus really was not obligated to pay it. However, lest His example of not paying should cause others to stumble (by refusing to pay the tax they owed), He told Peter to go to the sea and cast a hook. The fish he would catch would have a coin in its mouth sufficient to pay the tax for both Himself and Peter. It is important to notice that Jesus sacrificed His privilege so that others would not be led astray. This very same attitude is seen in the life of the apostle Paul. In 1 Corinthians 9 Paul shows us what privileges he gave up for the sake of preaching the gospel of Christ, and he exhorts the Corinthians (and us) to make similar sacrifices if they will help prevent some weaker one from sinning against his conscience or running into excess.

Some may object, however, on the ground of passages such as 1 Peter 2:8. There we are told that Christ is a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to some, particularly the Jews. Paul makes a similar claim about the Jews and the gospel in 1 Corinthians 2:23. Do not these passages teach us that Jesus is in a very real sense the reason why the Jews rejected the kingdom? We must realize that the Jews did indeed stumble at Christ and His gospel, but not because Jesus willfully wished it. Jesus focused the greater part of His ministry on earth upon the Jews, and the apostles were commissioned to preach to the Jews first. Jesus was a rock of offense to the Jews because they were stubborn and proud, unwilling to humble themselves to obey Him. Only in this sense did Jesus cause the Jews to sin; but it was not a deliberate or intentional result planned by the Lord. It was rather a sad consequence which the Jews brought upon themselves. See Matthew 23:37-39 and Romans 10:1-3. The fact remains thatJesus never intentionally or deliberately acted so as to cause another to sin.

Jesus was constantly aware of the kind of influence He should be leaving before others, and He never left a bad influence or example for anyone. He never did or said anything that might encourage someone to act recklessly or against his conscience. And so must His disciples be. Jesus described us, the citizens of His kingdom, as the light of the world and the salt of the earth (Matt. 5:13-16). Both of these metaphors convey the idea of influence. We are to be influences for good in this world. It is our job to make this world a better place by our influence (which is molded by the gospel).

Now let us again examine some specific applications taken from the pool of activities which some try to justify as harmless or morally neutral. We could mention dancing again in this connection. Jesus would never have done it even if it were morally indifferent, simply because it would have left the wrong kind of influence: it would have led others to lust. We could also mention the wearing of immodest clothes again in this connection, and for the same reason. But let us look at two more activities which some defend, and ask, “Would Jesus do this?”

Drinking (Even Socially): Would Jesus Do That?

Is the picture we have of Jesus one of Him going up into the mountain to pray and carrying along a six-pack of beer? Can we picture Jesus talking to Nicodemus about the new birth while both are seated at the local bar sipping on martinis? Certainly not. Jesus would have refused to allow anyone to think that He in any way condoned the image that the world has of alcohol. The world equates drinking (and the world is not always so quick to make or acknowledge the difference between social drinking and drunkenness which some press) with carousing, reveling, rebellion, and lawlessness (and it is naive to think otherwise). Everyone – even the alcoholic – will admit that drinking kills thousands of people every year in one way or another, Certainly Jesus would never have let anyone suppose that He approved of it in any way. And if Jesus would not, neither should we.

“Stretching The Truth” or Hiding Part Of It: Would Jesus Do That?

There is a common saying, “What you do not know will not hurt you. ” It is often used to justify the practice of keeping back part of the truth when that truth may make one look bad in the eyes of others. Equally problematic is the practice of exaggerating or overemphasizing some parts of the truth in order to change the impression the truth may have upon others. Again we ask, would Jesus ever have done that? The answer is a flat “no.” Jesus always instructed me to speak honestly and truthfully with others. He denounced the Pharisaic system which allowed a man to make an oath and break it (Matt. 23:16-22). He and His apostles always stressed that whatever we say must be the honest truth (Matt. 5:37; Jas. 5:12). Thus as we live to copy Jesus’ example which never misled anyone, we must always speak and practice the truth. Anything else may cause others to sin.

Jesus was above reproach not only personally, but also in His contacts with and influence upon others. Not once do we ever observe Him doing or saying anything which was willfully designed to harm another spiritually. Moreover, He even sacrificed some privileges He had the right to enjoy out of a concern for how others would be influenced by His engaging in them. His influence was nothing but good. How about ours?

Guardian of Truth XXX: 5, pp. 136, 150
March 6, 1986

By Don R. Hastings

In 3 John 9, 10, we read, “I wrote somewhat unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Therefore, if I come, I will bring to remembrance his works which he doeth, prating against us with wicked words; and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and them that would he forbiddeth and casteth them out of the church.”

The main characteristic of Diotrephes is that he “loveth to have the preeminence among them.” Brother Guy N. Woods, in his commentary on the New Testament epistles, wrote, “The word ‘preeminence,’ (philoproteuon, present active participle,) is derived from philoprotos, a fondness for being first; and is, alas, a disposition too often observable in our ranks today. The spirit manifested by this man Diotrephes is wholly foreign to the New Testament and opposed to the teaching of the Lord himself. All self-serving and personal aggrandizement must be eschewed and avoided if we would measure to the standard of primitive Christianity” (A Commentary On The New Testament Epistles, Vol. VII, p. 363).

It was the love for preeminence which led to the formation of the Roman Catholic Church. This attitude is prevalent in the Lord’s church and is still the cause of much dissension. The predominant characteristic of those who act like Diotrephes is still the love for preeminence. They want their will to be exalted above all others and woe be to anyone who would dare question their decision on anything.

Diotrephes may have felt that the apostle John would have been more greatly honored by the church than himself. His pride would not stand for that to happen. Those, who act like Diotrephes, are inflated with pride. This pride will lead to their spiritual destruction (Prov. 16:18). Pride keeps them from seeing their faults or listening to someone who disagrees with them. It keeps them from asking for forgiveness unless asking for forgiveness helps keep them in power. It causes them to be jealous of another’s ability. If they begin to suspect that someone else is beginning to be highly esteemed by the congregation, then they feel compelled to undermine his reputation. They view anyone, who has leadership ability and does his own thinking, as a rival. What great harm this does to the Lord’s church! What a great victory for Satan!

Those with the disposition of Diotrephes will split the local congregation if they don’t get their way. They will hold grudges. They will lie over and over again. They will claim they have been misunderstood. They will meet privately with brethren to try and persuade them to join their side. What strife and turmoil they cause. Weak brethren fall by the “way-side. ” Some brethren, who were once strong in the faith, may become less active in the Lord’s service.

I have met “Diotrephes” in several congregations and the meetings have not been pleasant. He is not always easy to identify when you first meet him, because he wears other names and disguises his true attitude. He can smile sweetly and do good deeds. He can be very charming until opposed. If he is opposed by someone who has very little influence in the congregation, he may choose to ignore such a one. However, if he is opposed by someone who has some influence, then that one will be severely rebuked by him “with malicious words” (KJV), usually when no one else is around. If the opposition continues, then “Diotrephes” will rebuke him publicly and endeavor to cast him “out of the church.”

I have found this attitude demonstrated in elders, preachers, and occasionally in other members. It is hard for many to take a position of authority without it going to their head. Because of this human weakness, God gave the qualification of “not self-willed” as a trait which must be possessed by a man who is appointed an elder (Tit. 1:7). The “Diotrephes” person is, also, “contentious” and usually “soon angry” (1 Tim. 3:3; Tit. 1:7). We often pay little attention to these qualifications, but spend considerable amount of time discussing whether a man must have one or two children to be qualified. It is extremely difficult to remove “Diotrephes” after he has become an elder. When he takes over the congregation and exalts himself as the head of the church, then the church ceases to belong to the Lord, for it belongs to him. The brethren become subject to him. Brethren, how can you stand by idly and permit this evil situation to go on? Where is your courage?

Peter said that elders are not to be tending the flock of God by “. . . lording it over the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves ensamples to the flock” (1 Pet. 5:2,3). In the commentary already mentioned in this article, I found this statement, “The words ‘lording it over’ (from katakurieuo, to rule over others high-handedly and autocratically) suggests an arrogant, domineering spirit, and is here positively forbidden to those who would serve acceptably as elders or bishops” (Ibid., p. 125). Elders should be an “ample to the brethren in humility. God will resist all with the attitude of Diotrephes (1 Pet. 5:5,6). No one should ever be made an elder if he has a love for power. Beware of men who campaign for the eldership.

If you choose to reveal the true identity of “Diotrephes ” be prepared for a bitter struggle. He will strongly resent being called “Diotrophes” even though he acts just like the Diotrephes John knew. Be prepared, also, to stand alone. Some brethren may sing about defending the cause of Christ, but really want no part of a battle even though the Lord’s church is being torn asunder. Paul told Timothy, “Fight the good fight of faith. . . ” (1 Tim. 6:12). Too many are keeping their spiritual sword in its sheath and not taking it out for use. Are you doing this or are you closing your eyes and saying, “I see no evil”?

I believe the Lord must find it a great abomination for someone to try to usurp His authority! This is an awful sin! How can we expect to find favor in the eyes of the Lord when we have dethroned Him and exalted ourselves in His place? We must remember that He has all authority and we are His bond servants. We are His sheep. We must humbly obey Him in all things. Let us greatly rejoice that we can serve in His kingdom and He will be our Shepherd! Let elders remember that they are shepherds serving under the chief Shepherd (1 Pet. 5:4).

I believe the greatest need, in the Lord’s church today, is qualified elders. God, in His matchless wisdom, made elders to be overseers of the flock. He gave qualifications for men to meet who seek the office of an elder (1 Tim. 3; Tit. 1). Those, who fulfill these qualifications and are appointed elders, are a blessing to the cause of Christ. Let us “esteem them highly in love for their work’s sake” (1 Thess. 5:13). There is no greater work than that of an elder. It is a work which demands tremendous sacrifice, energy, time and wisdom. Elders, do your work well for you will give an account to the Lord of lords (Heb. 13:17).

Preachers, proclaim faithfully the glorious gospel of Christ. Proclaim it in love. Exalt Christ, but crucify self (Gal. 2:20). Preach to please Christ, not men (Gal. 1:10).

Any of us may possess the attitude of Diotrephes. We are all capable of putting off humility and putting on pride. If we are guilty of this, we cause the Lord to weep and Satan to rejoice. If you have this attitude, repent with bitter tears at once. Call upon God to forgive you. Be very determined that this diabolical attitude will never again dwell in your heart.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 5, pp. 131-132
March 6, 1986

By Larry Ray Hafley

Much good preaching is done in an attempt to “restore the ancient order” of things divine. That is as it should be (2 Cor. 10:3-5). More teaching needs to be and will be presented in that noble effort. It is a constant, crying demand for those who love the Lord and His word (2 Tim. 4:2-8).

Perhaps all Christians can see neglected areas. Each has his own idea of a particular area of the faith that is not given the attention it deserves. Here is one aspect of truth that requires more emphasis:

“Ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine” (Acts 5:28). “And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ” (Acts 5:42). “Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word” (Acts 8:4). “I . . . have showed you, and taught you publicly, and from house to house” (Acts 20:20).

If daily teaching and preaching of the word “publicly, and from house to house” is not done, there will be no problems like unqualified elders, church discipline, or the music question, for there will be no churches, no elders and no worship. It is a sorry way cure a patient by letting him e. That is what is happening many places. Churches are curing their problems by dying of salvation starvation. The church dissipates, dissolves, and disappears. “Doc, I’ve got a horse with a horse with a broken leg. Oh, I can fix that. Shoot the horse.”

Imitate Jews

We speak and sing about our desire to be like Jesus. “Consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession” concerning personal work. Jesus did much public preaching and teaching, but He also taught individuals. Nicodemus (Jn. 3), the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn. 4), and Zacchaeus (Lk. 19), are classic examples. If we would truly be like Jesus, we cannot ignore His pattern in this area. Our Lord was not always successful (Mk. 10:22). Even His own brothers did not accept Him for a time. However, He made use of occasions to talk privately to the lost about their souls. Unless we develop a sincere desire to see others saved and actively work with them on a personal level, we will not “be like Jesus.” No person was too lowly, no situation was too insignificant for our Lord to talk to someone about his soul. Dare we manifest less love than our blessed Savior?

Some Things Alone Will Not Work

Two gospel meetings a year with a “schedule of regular services” will not do that job. The meetings are often poorly planned, announced, advertised and attended. But that is food for another article. The problem is that the saints are not reaching and teaching others “daily and from house to house.” We may soothe our consciences with faithful attendance and with ready answers for denominational errors, but unless we are preaching the word in homes, cars, offices, schools, factories, wherever there is opportunity, we will die a slow death and lose our souls. There must be a sense of urgency about teaching the lost. A fifteen minute radio program alone will not do the job. The real problem is our own refusal to personally and directly confront our friends, neighbors and relatives with the gospel.

The world does not care about our meeting houses. They are not impressed with the fact that some man named Hafley will speak there with “no nightly collections.” The world is not beating down the doors to at tend our “series of gospel meetings. ” Please do not write and complain about my alleged attack against gospel of meetings. I am not assaulting them. I am saying that we must do more on a personal, individual level. Would you deny it? Meetings, radio programs and newspaper articles alone will not suffice. They are good and useful tools, but they must not supplant or displace “one on one” contact.

Churches rightly and properly conduct personal work programs and classes. But if the participants see Tuesday as “Personal Work” night (with a capital “P” and a capital “W”) and fail to teach those they meet, live and work with, it is incomplete at best, or a failure at worst. There is absolutely no substitute for personal evangelism or personal work (with a small “p” and a small “w”). I can neither avoid nor escape it. Can you? The duty, the responsibility to teach others will not go away. Every face you see, every person with whom you have a relationship, is a prospect, and an opportunity. Let that ring in your ears and haunt your mind as you live from day to day.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 5, p. 139
March 6, 1986